(Disclaimer: as much as I would like to take credit for this magnificent pumpkin, it was actually carved by my buddy Stephen, not me.)

Heh.

And you can read why here.

I could cross post, but it’s long and so if you don’t feel like reading a wall of text, then I understand.

So everyone can keep track of the potential wrong doings.

With the passing of the FISA bill today in the Senate I had a few questions.  First I have to say I agree with DM’s assessment below. I think the bill is lousy and shouldn’t be passed. Will that stop me from voting for Obama? No, because the alternative is far worse. I still believe that Obama is going to accomplish some very positive things while he is in office. Yes, the FISA bill is important to me but not my number one issue.

With that said I have a question: The FISA bill gives immunity to the telecoms but does it give immunity to the President? Is the President off the hook for initiating all of this in the first place? It seems to me that we should be going after him (and whoever else) as he was the main person involved. I ask because it seems to me that yes the telecoms are now immune to any further prosecution but should we fault them because they followed the law like they were supposed to?

I’m thinking there is more to this than I realize. I know you guys can help fill me in.

I’ve been reading Glenn Greenwald’s column at Salon pretty obsessively.  He’s thorough, smart, and generally tends to lay the legal issues he presents out in a way I can understand. I get that he has a point of view; this doesn’t bother me, I try to filter through the noise in any way I can. But his politics seem to mirror mine in many ways, so I pay attention so I can use his arguments to counter ones of conservatives. 

Which is why this post made me worry. The condensed version of that column is that Obama is starting to take positions that generally go along with the establishment or to agree with things that he gave the impression he was supposed to be against. Especially things that were promoted by the Bush administration or its adherents. 

Then there’s the sudden support for the FISA bill…which is baffling, and a reversal of a position he’d taken previously.

I’m not naive; I know that politicians have to make some compromises to get things done, that there are some large and powerful interests (usually corporate) in our country that have tremendous influence over policy. That said; what in the hell is going on? He’s not even in office and suddenly he’s taking up positions that the Beltway endorses? Do we need Clinton in this race to ensure that someone with a somewhat progressive ideology takes the presidency?

Shouldn’t there be some principles that Obama should take and stick with? If the biggest distinction between him and McCain becomes, he’s the black guy, then really why am I voting for either of those two men? 

I dunno. Maybe I’m just asking for too much when I say I want someone who wants to break from the policies and ideas of the past 8 years and try something different, because I see a fuckton of failure starting in 2000.  If Obama votes for that FISA bill, I’m not sure if I can vote for him. The issue is important to me, but more important is the willingness to stick with your principles. 

Just got back from Salt Lake City where a certain sock puppet prototype is stirring up a scene:

The Obama sock puppet somehow failed to trigger any thoughts of racism, African American history, or general sense of decency in toy designers, David and Elizabeth Lawson of Utah. Despite the fact that they also have a McCain sock puppet in the works, the toy designer is insistent he’s going to find a manufacturer for his Obama doll. “The desire to continue to manufacture the doll is a shift from the Lawsons’ original statement that they did not realize that depicting a black man as a monkey would carry any implications of racism,” writes reporter Sheena McFarland of the The Salt Lake Tribune. Read more about the backlash here.

First of all, it won’t be Hillary… and judging from Obama’s little confrontation with Lieberman today, it won’t be anyone who’s been a douchebaggy namby-pamby capitulating Dem…

So what’s the short list? Here they are in alphabetical order:

• Joe Biden
• Bob Casey
• John Edwards
• Chris Dodd
• Al Gore
• Chuck Hagel
• Janet Napolitano
• Bill Richardson
• Kathleen Sebelius
• Jim Webb

Of course, it could be someone no one is thinking of right now. Particularly given that Obama won the Democratic nomination with an unconventional campaign, his VP selection probably won’t follow the conventional wisdom either.

I think Obama will.. duh… pick someone who he thinks would be a good president, and someone who would be a solid choice as a potential successor in 2016.

I’d like it to be Edwards. I think it will probably be Jim Webb. I’d be pissed if he gave it to Hagel, given the LARGE number of qualified Democrats out there.

What do you think, sirs?